"Most of the dogs we adopt out are pit bull or pit bull type dogs," says Cleveland's Chief Animal Control Officer Ed Jamison.

On the street, it's no secret that many pit bulls are abandoned by drug dealers, criminals, and those who had the dogs for protection. But some who live and work in the city say they are the ones who need protecting.

USPS mail carrier Martel Norris was on his regular Glenville route in Cleveland when a pit bull charged at him.

"I was on my next delivery just crossing over someone's driveway. Soon as the dog seen me, it went charging instantly. I reached for my pepper spray, couldn't get it out in time, cause two seconds he was at my leg," Norris recalled.

The pit bull latched onto Norris's leg, putting him out of commission for more than two weeks while undergoing therapy and treatment for blood clots in his leg.

Norris was one of the lucky ones. He said he had seen the dog before, leashed to an abandoned home. Somehow it got loose on the day of the attack.

Cleveland 19's investigative producer asked Norris if he felt that pit bulls are increasing in neighborhoods.

"Absolutely. I've seen people coming up with pit bull puppies, they are breeding more puppy pit bulls. I know that's one of their favorites. They love pit bulls," Norris said.

As the pit bull population grows in Cleveland, so do reports of pit bull attacks.

Carl Monday's investigative team reviewed police reports for all animal attack calls since the beginning of 2014.

The city has reported approximately 500 dog bites that can be attributed to a specific breed. About 40 percent involved pit bulls.

Still, the city's Chief Animal Control Officer, Ed Jamison, insists that pit bulls pose no particular danger to the public.

"I do not believe that the City of Cleveland has a pit bull problem," Jamison said.

Only four area communities have specific pit bull laws. Cleveland is not one of them, having done away with breed specific laws in 2011.

Neither is Shaker Heights. But that could soon change.

"We just can't allow that kind of danger to exist in the city without doing something about it," said Shaker Heights Law Director William Gruber. He is considering a new law that would tighten restrictions on current pit bull owners, and ban any future pit bull ownership in Shaker Heights.

"By the time we find a dog is vicious, that means it already killed a domestic animal, cat or dog, or has severely injured a human," Gruber said.

Or in the case of 71-year-old Annie Williams, even worse.

Last summer, Williams was picking up her grandchildren at a relative's home in Shaker Heights, when the family's pit bull mauled her, killing her.

There was no warning.

The grandchildren, 8 and 7 years old, saw it all.

Their mother, Tequila Williams, described what happened when the 8-year-old called and broke the news on the phone.

"She said 'grandma...grandma got...no...grandma's dead.' The dog bit her in the neck and they couldn't stop the bleeding," Williams said.

1 comment:

Let's hope they #wontbackdown on this, that this 'gonna do something' about the pit bull plague isn't just theater for public consumption until indignation dies down.

The first thing they need to do is purge so-called Animal Control of anyone and everyone who defends pit bulls. Jamison shouldn't only be replaced, he should be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

Heartfelt thanks to Carl Monday and his team, for doing real investigative journalism. And thanks to them because it looks like they also #wontbackdown despite the terror the pit freaks are subjecting them to.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.